{"id":1888,"date":"2010-07-23T18:17:09","date_gmt":"2010-07-23T12:47:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=1888"},"modified":"2010-07-23T18:17:09","modified_gmt":"2010-07-23T12:47:09","slug":"garware-polyester-vs-state-bombay-high-court-failure-to-follow-high-courts-order-is-contempt-of-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/garware-polyester-vs-state-bombay-high-court-failure-to-follow-high-courts-order-is-contempt-of-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Garware Polyester vs. State (Bombay High Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"<table width=\"150\" border=\"0\" align=\"right\">\n<tr>\n<td><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=229\" onclick=\"if (event.button==0) \r\n     setTimeout(function () { window.location = 'http:\/\/itatonline.org\/downloads.php?varname=dl_id=229&varname2=garware_contempt_court.pdf'; }, 100)\" ><strong>Click here to download the judgement (garware_contempt_court.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong> Failure to follow High Court\u2019s order is contempt of court<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The AO passed an assessment order in which he <em>declined to follow<\/em> the judgement of the Bombay High Court in <strong>CST vs. Pee Vee Textiles<\/strong> 26 VST 281 on the ground that the said judgement \u201c<em>is not accepted by the Sales Tax Department and legal proceeding is initiated against the said judgment<\/em>\u201d. On a Writ Petition filed by the assessee, the High Court has taken the view that as the said judgement in <strong>Pee Vee Textiles<\/strong> is not stayed, \u201c<strong><em>the refusal to follow and implement the judgment of this Court by Mr.Dubey in our considered view prima facie amounts to contempt of this Court<\/em><\/strong>\u201d. The Court directed issue of a show-cause notice to the AO as to why <strong>action under the Contempt of Courts Act<\/strong> should not be initiated against him.<\/p>\n<div class=\"journal2\">\nNote: In <strong>Kamalakshi Finance Corporation<\/strong> 53 ELT 433 (SC), <strong>ITO vs. Siemens India<\/strong> 156 ITR 11 (Bom) &#038; <strong>Bank of Baroda vs. Srivastava<\/strong> 122 TM 330 (Bom) it was held that even the Tribunal&#8217;s order is binding on the AO. See Also <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/mercedes-benz-vs-uoi-bombay-high-court-one-bench-cannot-differ-from-the-view-of-another-co-ordinate-bench-but-must-refer-to-a-larger-bench\">Mercedes Benz vs. UOI<\/a><\/strong> (Bom) on the importance of judicial discipline. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The AO passed an assessment order in which he <em>declined to follow<\/em> the judgement of the Bombay High Court in <strong>CST vs. Pee Vee Textiles<\/strong> 26 VST 281 on the ground that the said judgement \u201c<em>is not accepted by the Sales Tax Department and legal proceeding is initiated against the said judgment<\/em>\u201d. On a Writ Petition filed by the assessee, the High Court has taken the view that as the said judgement in <strong>Pee Vee Textiles<\/strong> is not stayed, \u201c<strong><em>the refusal to follow and implement the judgment of this Court by Mr.Dubey in our considered view prima facie amounts to contempt of this Court<\/em><\/strong>\u201d. The Court directed issue of a show-cause notice to the AO as to why <strong>action under the Contempt of Courts Act<\/strong> should not be initiated against him<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/garware-polyester-vs-state-bombay-high-court-failure-to-follow-high-courts-order-is-contempt-of-court\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1888","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-high-court"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1888","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1888"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1888\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1888"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1888"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1888"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}